You are here

Updated: Big Bend National Park Proposing To Cut Mountain Bike Trail, PEER, NPS Retirees Raise Objections

Share

Big Bend's Lone Mountain would be circled with a hiking and biking
trail under a proposed Centennial Initiative project. Photo by Jeff
Blaylock, used with permission.

The very purpose and role of national parks is being drawn into question over a proposal by Big Bend National Park officials to cut a dual-use mountain bike trail into a hillside near Panther Junction.

In some aspects, the proposal underscores the gist of a Traveler column from last month, one in which we broached the subject of the popularity of having a national park nearby but the often-resulting opposition to many of the rules and regulations -- and even restrictions -- that come with such an entity on the landscape.

At the heart of the issue, as opponents to the mountain bike trail note, is the role national parks were created and the mandate given the National Park Service to manage them. While public enjoyment and recreation are certainly key to the parks, resource management is foremost the role of the Park Service.

Against that mandate, questions are being raised over whether Big Bend officials are holding to that mandate, or bending over to placate a special interest group that already has more than 300 miles of mountain biking opportunities in the park.

Big Bend officials are preparing an environmental assessment into a roughly 10-mile-long network of trails that would be cut into an undeveloped part of the park. Part of the project would include parking for a trailhead and a picnic area near the Panther Junction Visitor Center, and a second trailhead near Grapevine Hills Road.

While the park describes this trail as an added recreational outlet for park visitors, members of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees see it as little more than a "promotion of the mountain bike industry" and a move that facilitates "the regrettable trend toward parks becoming venues for extreme sports."

This project did not arise overnight. Indeed, back in 2007 it was seen as a "centennial project" by Interior officials under the George W. Bush administration. Back then, the International Mountain Bicycling Association was a strong proponent, and had promised to come up with half of the $12,000 cost then estimated for the project.

The proposed loop trail would start near the visitor center at Panther Junction, cross the Chihuahuan desert and wrap Lone Mountain while providing sweeping views of the Chisos Mountains, the southern-most mountain range in the country.

While Big Bend officials say the trail is simply another recreational outlet for park visitors, they do note that it's part of a deal IMBA struck with the National Park Service years ago to explore more mountain biking in the park system.

The purpose of the proposed project is to provide park visitors a trail-based recreational opportunity in an area of the park where none currently exists. The proposed action is in keeping with a 2002 Memorandum of Agreement between NPS and the International Mountain Biking Association that encouraged identifying mountain biking opportunities in the national parks, including new trail construction in appropriate areas. The primary objectives of the proposal are to: 1) create new recreational opportunities for park visitors, and 2) provide a trail-based recreational opportunity in the vicinity of Panther Junction.

   
That arrangement with IMBA is part of the issue cited by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility in their objections.

"The project is a collaboration between the south Texas national park and a private mountain biking group, raising disturbing “pay-to-play” questions about user groups carving out park lands for special purposes," the group said in comments it filed with the Park Service.
 
Most of the backcountry trail would be single-track – approximately the width of a bike, with one-way traffic moving counter clockwise.  Horses would be barred from the trail.
 
“Big Bend calls this a ‘multi-use’ trail but it is clearly designed for high-speed, high-thrill biking.  Any hikers foolish enough to venture on this path risk tread marks across their backs,” said PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch, noting that the EA dryly concedes “some visitors might not enjoy their experience sharing the proposed trail with mountain bikers.” 

“We are not anti-mountain biking," said Mr. Ruch, "but are concerned that scarce public dollars may be diverted to promote exclusionary recreation scratched out of national park backcountry.” 

In their comments on the proposal, members of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees said Big Bend officials seem to be "pursuing an agenda not supported by law, policy and common sense."

"The mountain bike trail construction proposal for Big Bend NP raises serious questions regarding the purpose of National Parks. Through law, Congress and the courts have clearly established that resource protection must always come before visitor enjoyment," Rick Smith, who chairs the coalition's executive committee, wrote to the park. "While there may often be a tug of war between those who place enjoyment first and those who place preservation first, the law clearly states which of the interests has priority. 

"Further, NPS Policies articulate this legal precedence into coherent direction for the agency to place resource protection as the primary role of the agency in managing our parks," he added. "In the case of this EA we believe that single-track mountain biking may be enjoyable for the participants but we do not believe it is necessary or appropriate for experiencing the value and purposes for which national parks are set aside by Congress and construction of a single use trail certainly does not conform to the resource protection deference over public enjoyment the park must honor."

Carving this stretch of bike trail, wrote Mr. Smith, "provides no additional means of appreciating park wilderness beyond that available on existing backcountry roads, particularly on roads with very low speeds and levels of vehicular traffic."

"There is nothing about single-track mountain biking that adds a unique opportunity to appreciate the natural and cultural resources of this national park. On the contrary, the rough, rocky terrain combined with hazardous vegetation detracts from that opportunity. In addition there are hundreds of miles of single track opportunities on nearby private and state lands where mountain biking is being actively welcomed and promoted."

PEER's other concerns include:

*  This would be the first trail constructed from scratch on undeveloped park land to accommodate mountain bicycles.   A pending rule change, also supported by IMBA would open millions of acres of national park backcountry, including recommended wilderness, to mountain bike trails;

*  Big Bend already has 200 miles of trails and roads open to mountain biking and there are another 900 miles of bike-accessible trails and roads on state and private lands surrounding Big Bend;

*  This trail would be expensive to maintain and vulnerable to high erosion.  Yet Big Bend, like other national parks, has a sizeable backlog of maintenance needs on existing facilities, and;

*  While the proposed trail is not in designated wilderness, the project would likely preclude the land from ever being designating as wilderness.
 
“The plan at Big Bend is without precedent in the national park system,” added Mr. Ruch, who is urging members of the public to send comments to Big Bend National Park before the comment period on the park's Environmental Assessment runs out April 2.  “This is part of the steady degradation of our parks into settings for thrill sports rather than preserves for enjoyment of natural and cultural features.”
 
Currently, bicycles are allowed on park roads, dirt or paved, as well as on trails in developed areas, such as the South Rim Village at the Grand Canyon.  Backcountry trails are generally reserved for hikers and horseback riders. IMBA began its campaign to gain access to national parks trails in 2002.

A copy of the park's environmental assessment is attached below. To voice your opinion on this project, head to this site.

Featured Article

Comments

Matt, simple, read the wilderness act:http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=NWPS&sec=legisAct


I see no problem with desginating certain trails as mountain bike friendly trails.  I have never understood the the reason for preventing bikes on trails that you allow horses and pack stock on.  Riding a bike on a trail disturbs the environment and wildlife about as much as hiking though the area.  Responsible riders stay on the trails and follow guidelines as do responsible hikers and horseback riders.  In certain parks livestock grazing is allowed but if you ride a bike through that area full of cow patties then you face a fine.  The NPS is lacking common sense with mountainbiking and their policies.  Hope one day they take off the blinders and realize that designating some trail, not all, for mountain biking will still allow them to protect the resource and allow for it's enjoyment for this and future generations. 


Ryan,

I respectfully disagree.  Mountain bikes are not outlawed by the 64 Act itself but by a reinterpretation of the Act by a federal agency.  Ted Stroll did a thorough review of the subject (google it if you want) and proves the point I'm making.  I understand that most wildernuts don't want to see a bike in "their" prized wilderness for whatever reason, but the law did not ban bikes.

We could go on at length on the subject, like we have before, but I would be arguing facts against emotions, and we know that it rarely gets us anywhere. :)

On a separate note, when I see that it takes 93 pages of study to open one lousy trail, I shake my head in disbelief.  I would love to know how much money we're spending on these studies.  No wonder our government can't get anything done without spending a ton of money.


“Big Bend calls this a ‘multi-use’ trail but it is clearly designed for high-speed, high-thrill biking. Any hikers foolish enough to venture on this path risk tread marks across their backs,” said PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch

This remark is inflammatory and misleading, libelous even. I am a 38 year old female professional, liberal, nature-loving person who enjoys mountain biking and hiking as well as backpacking. The increase in recreational usage of nature (i.e. mountain biking) is only a good thing for preserving more of it for the future. It has far less impact to the natural environment than competing interests such as oil and gas exploration, motorized access, or even horseback riding. I stop for hikers, or give them wide berth if there is room to pass slowly, make eye contact, say hello. I am not some type of thrill seeker who would run over a person. If I ever did run into a hiker, (which I never have), I would get knocked off the bike and seriously injured as well. So aside from being socially responsible, there is self-interest to riding carefully in multi-use areas. 

Mr. Ruch is not helping his cause by attempting to mislead the public with stereotypes about a diverse group of people. There are always bad apples, but you find them in any group of human beings. There are hikers who put dangerous booby traps on trails, litter, venture off trail, cut short cuts through switchbacks, or are just out there to check on their illegal pot grow. Google Mike Vandeman. However, I would never characterize ALL hikers as militants with intention to do harm, or pot growers or litterers. That would be just as illogical as Mr. Ruch's stereotype of mountain bikers. 

Mountain bikers and IMBA could be a great resource that those like Mr. Ruch could be using to advance the worthy objective of securing more open land from development. His negative portrayal of mountain bikers is akin to skiers' portrayal of snowboarders in the early 90's. It is born of a conservative, snobbish attitude that doesn't adapt to the times, and shows an inability to share. The truth is that 30 lb. bikes on trails create a far lower impact than horseback riding on 2000 lb., steel shod fence post diggers, which is allowed in national parks.

“We are not anti-mountain biking," said Mr. Ruch, 

lol!

"but are concerned that scarce public dollars may be diverted to promote exclusionary recreation scratched out of national park backcountry.” 

The National Parks are currently promoting exclusionary recreation with my tax money by limiting them to those on foot or on horseback. Activities with impacts lower than horseback riding, such as responsbile cycling within reasonable limits, should be allowed. 

IMBA has very high standards for trail construction that reduce the impact of erosion, and slow down bikers by avoiding straight paths down fall lines and using natural obstacles, and protect other trail users by improving sight lines. There is no substance to Mr. Ruch's incendiary ranting.


I keep saying this is not about wilderness but I feel the need to clear the air...
this is directly from the wilderness act:
"Except as specifically provided for in this Act, and subject to existing private rights, there shall be no commercial enterprise and no permanent road within any wilderness area designated by this Act and, except as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of this Act (including measures required in emergencies involving the health and safety of persons within the area), there shall be no temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation within any such area."
I don't think it takes much interpretation to say that a bike is a form of mechanical transport.  Really, I don't think that having a mtn bike or two in a wilderness area is all that big of a deal, but I feel people are warpping the law to meet there needs.  
I read some of Mr. Stroll's work and he has interpreted the law through his eyes.  Of course the law does not say Mtn bikes are prohibited, they did not exisit in 1964, thus the use of mechanized to be forward thinking.


You really should be careful when arguing about something you know very little about.

I have not seen one legitatmate reason for why the trail should not be created.

Unsubstatiated concern #1: We need to preserve the land
Response:  Environmental scientists have studied the impact of Mountain Biking on trails and found that there is very little to no impact.  Do you even know what "single-track" means?  It is a trail the width of your bike tire.  Hikers create wider tails than that.  We're not talking about major construction or disruption of the wilderness. 

Unsubstatiated concern #2:  Mountain Biking is a dangerous extreme sport
Response:  Mountain Biking is nothing more than hiking on wheels.  You go a little faster being on wheels, but not much.  After all, you are hopping over the logs and slowly climbing up steep hills (which is what makes it fun, why mountain bikers don't want to be on a road, and why it's such a healthy, strength-building activity).  And mountain bikers enjoy the scenery while doing it just like hikers. Also, all existing shared-use trails have signs at the trail-heads reaffirming what we all already know and abide by: everyone else including hikers and horses have the right-of-way at all times.

Unsubstatiated concern #3:  Big Bend can't handle the maintenance
Response:  There isn't a whole lot that needs to be done to maintain single-track.  Furthermore, IMBA and other groups typically schedule a maintenance day around spring time when unpaid volunteers come out to the trails to take care of maintenance needs.

If IMBA is paying a large portion, overseeing the entire project (and they really know what they are doing), will help with maintenance, and it won't hurt the land or bother other people then there is no reason why it shouldn't be done.   Do your research before you argue and possibly take away such a great asset from innocent, nature- and bike-loving people.


Reading the posts on the mountain bike trail at Big Bend it is apparent that many are not aware of the major purpose of National Parks. Us old-timers rightly or wrongly have always thought they were special places seperate from National Forests and BLM lands. For example places where you didn't have to listen to barking dogs or encounter dogs running loose, or gunshots, or places where experiencing nature slowly and in it's natural quiet is one of a National Parks values. If they are no longer to be special places then I am glad I am old, and the young will never know what they missed.


Roger,

Nice post.  Separate from National Recreation Areas, too.


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

The Essential RVing Guide

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

The National Parks RVing Guide, aka the Essential RVing Guide To The National Parks, is the definitive guide for RVers seeking information on campgrounds in the National Park System where they can park their rigs. It's available for free for both iPhones and Android models.

This app is packed with RVing specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 parks.

You'll also find stories about RVing in the parks, some tips if you've just recently turned into an RVer, and some planning suggestions. A bonus that wasn't in the previous eBook or PDF versions of this guide are feeds of Traveler content: you'll find our latest stories as well as our most recent podcasts just a click away.

So whether you have an iPhone or an Android, download this app and start exploring the campgrounds in the National Park System where you can park your rig.